Basil, that's terrible man! (I couldn't watch that film to the end, I'm just not cut for it - I admit it).
There's some good replies there especially yours TM.
Not even in the same level of risk or responsibility, years ago when I was doing the Ships Protection Organisation at Senior Rate Level, as well as repeat the usual list on the 3 JSP cards (orange, white and one other - I've forgotten) I gave our very young ships protection team a hypothetical question/scenario about what could happen (unlikely but never totally impossible given the political situation at that time) at our particular berth that day, and I asked them " Would you return fire here or perhaps here, if this happens"? To a man and women they all would have declined to open fire, or return fire - and stated the reasons why.
I remember being really surprised and even a little stunned.
Either I was too aggressive, or they were too risk averse, or simply didn't trust our own law to protect themselves in court. I don't know. Nothing seemed straightforward anymore.
I think somehow HM Forces are now about to go up from the thin end of the wedge, as regards being even more liable for follow up and prosecution. And it wont be confined to our fighting soldiers and marines. Law Firms will have been watching carefully the recent events, as will others.
Yes VR, in perspective.Someone could argue then, in the video above the gunner had no requirement to shoot some of those injured men, for a variety of valid reasons. Someone's going to argue that, eventually. That video could be poured over in court, looked at for hour after hour - every single second.
Anyway, I know its a cliché but I remain with nothing but high respect for all HM Forces. I'm just glad I'm now out.